turtledovefandomcom-20200216-history
Talk:Nicholas II of Russia
We've got him, we've got his brother, we've got Wilhelm, we've got Wilhelm's son, we've got George V, we've got Edward VIII, we've got Elizabeth II, we've got Prince Charles, we've got Princess Di, we've got Prince Harry, we've got Victoria--Definitely enough for a Windsors category if so inclined. Turtle Fan 06:52, 10 December 2008 (UTC) :And even then definitely enough after you drop Nicholas II, his brother, Wilhelm, and Wilhelm's son. ^_^ Jelay14 07:46, 10 December 2008 (UTC) ::All of whom were related by blood or marriage to the British royal dynasty. Turtle Fan 15:02, 10 December 2008 (UTC) :::Which doesn't make them Windsors. Especially Nicholas and Mikhail, both of whom had abdicated months before the House of Windsor was even established by royal proclamation. :rolleyes: Jelay14 18:47, 10 December 2008 (UTC) ::::Well then what is their name? Turtle Fan 23:12, 10 December 2008 (UTC) :::::Romanov for the Russians? Hohenzollern for the Germans? Jelay14 23:18, 10 December 2008 (UTC) :::::::One family. We don't subdivide Driver into Chang and whatever the girl's husband's name was, or Enos into McGillicuddy, et cetera. Nor have we done so with Radcliffs and Radcliffes, which is a much nearer equivalent. "We're changing our name, which means we no longer have any relation to our former family members?" Please. No reason to do so here. :rolleyes: Turtle Fan 23:44, 10 December 2008 (UTC) ::::::::The Royals do so in real life. I find that reason rather compelling. TR 01:51, 11 December 2008 (UTC) :::::::::If they want to pretend their first cousins are not their first cousins, that's their business, but it's not the standard we use for most of our families. Turtle Fan 05:31, 11 December 2008 (UTC) ::::::We don't have Prince Harry, we have King Henry IX, who could be a Windsor (Edward VIII coming back onto the throne makes sense, but isn't stated explicitly). Princess Di was NOT a Windsor, a fact made very by her brother at her funeral. Victoria was Saxe-Coburg-Gotha--George V made the change. But we do have for sure George V, George VI, Elizabeth II, Prince Albert, Duke of Connaught, Edward VIII, and Charles III (who is not OTL Charles but is certainly a Windsor). So six. TR 23:23, 10 December 2008 (UTC) ::::::::Victoria was from the House of Hanover, not Saxe-Coburg and Gotha. Edward VII was the first British monarch of that house. According to Her Majesty's official website, he was also the last. Jelay14 00:46, 11 December 2008 (UTC) :::::::I can see where Henry IX might not be Harry (who wouldn't object to the swastika) even though Hitler wouldn't need to play around with useless figurehead monarchs as long as he had a Fascist Parliament--That's what he really needed. If Charles III isn't Prince Charles I can't imagine who else he is. :::::::But all this is unimportant. We need to pick a family name and throw them all into it. It's a Families category, not a Dynasties category, which do not exist here. Windsor rolls off the tongue, Saxe-Coburg-Gotha couldn't be made to stay on it if you used industrial-strength duct tape, but I'm indifferent to which of the two. That's the family through which they all claim relation, the Hohenzollerns and Romanovs are on other sides. We could just say "Victoria and her descendants" but that seems needlessly imprecise. Turtle Fan 23:44, 10 December 2008 (UTC) ::::::::Last I checked, a dynasty was a family/household that maintains their hold on the monarchy through several succeeding generations. So what are the Romanovs, the Bourbons, the members of the House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, Habsburgs, etc., etc., but families with a little bit of power and fame? Alternatively, why not do the right thing and create a dynasties category. Shouldn't be too hard since it appears we've been going through a dot-com boom equivalent of new categories these past couple of weeks. And then sub-categorize each royal family into Dynasties. Jelay14 01:02, 11 December 2008 (UTC) ::::::::::The one does not preclude the other. Turtle Fan 05:31, 11 December 2008 (UTC) :::::::::Category:Dynasties was created some time ago. :::::::::Charles III was, if I recall, Edward VIII's grandson in that story. So he's fictional. The name is an obvious homage, of course. TR 01:49, 11 December 2008 (UTC) ::::::::::If you mean Charles III from The Two Georges then TR is correct. See first paragraph here Talk:Titus Hackett. In addition to the name, the physical description also matches OTL Charles so HT clearly used him as a model for the fictional character. :::::::::::If you say so. Turtle Fan 05:31, 11 December 2008 (UTC) ::::::::::The problem with Henry IX being OTL Prince Harry is that he is Charles' younger son, so you would have to explain why Prince William is not king as well as Charles. ML4E 03:19, 11 December 2008 (UTC) :::::::::::A minor problem. And there is that swastika picture, we could have fun with that. Turtle Fan 05:31, 11 December 2008 (UTC) :::::::::Fascinating. You wish to lump several royals into one area in the name of accuracy, and yet you wish to make Prince Harry into Henry IX on no evidence simply so you can have fun with a swastika picture. TR 15:57, 11 December 2008 (UTC) ::::::::::Says the guy who dug up Marvin Lewis on less evidence still. I'll leave your beloved Henry alone, but I'm making the Families category. Since finding a family name they can all use is like pulling teeth I'll call them "Victoria's Relatives"--She seems the most logical point to use as a locus, since exporting children and grandchildren hither and yon was her brainchild. Turtle Fan 20:27, 11 December 2008 (UTC) :::::::::::I don't see a problem with calling Henry IX a Windsor. We have no evidence of him being Prince Harry, that's all. TR 20:59, 11 December 2008 (UTC) ::::::::::::I'll say this, as I recall ItPoME came out right around the time Harry was at his little costume party, and I could see HT adding a line or changing a name right before it went to print to get his licks in and bring a chuckle to the astute reader. He's done things like that ono ccasion. Turtle Fan 02:28, 12 December 2008 (UTC) :::::::::::::That wasn't my recollection so I checked. ItPoME published 2003. Harry's party 2005. ::::::::::::::Oh really? Oh well. I must have misremembered Harry's costume party as having happened a year earlier than it did. I bought ItPoME, full price hardcover, around that time of year, but the year earlier, and never got around to reading it. Anyway, with the mis-remembering I associated them as being near simultaneous. ::::::::::::::There goes that theory. And I'd enjoyed it too. Turtle Fan 04:59, 12 December 2008 (UTC) Tsars of Russia. We have our minimum three if that's how we want to slice it: Catherine, Nicky, and Mikhail II. We could also barely do the ATL/OTL split, with Catherine and Nicky in the latter, and Nicky and his brother in the former. Or should we just wait for the inevitable restoration that will come out of Supervolcano? TR 14:30, October 24, 2010 (UTC) :I had thought of that, but you know, since most of our non-fantasy monarchical titles are already split into OTL/ATL, I was thinking we might be better off waiting to see if we ever get enough to do three of each. Turtle Fan 19:27, October 24, 2010 (UTC) Nicky II in Sou Vic Was it ever stated in TL 191 that Nicky II was killed? I just assumed that he abdicated in favour of Mike and was exiled with his family to England, which was the plan in OTL until Lenin came around and got paranoid about a potential restoration. If it doesn't state it, then the passages on this wiki stating Nicky's death are speculative.JonathanMarkoff (talk) 23:38, November 4, 2015 (UTC) :You know, that's actually an interesting question. In TVO, we learn from Angelo Toricelli Michael is on the throne in 1934, and that a couple of years prior, he turned the Black Hundreds loose on the Jews. Toricelli concludes that if the peasants and the workers go after the Jews, "they don't have to worry about whether they might have done better throwing out Michael's brother Nicholas and going Red." TVO, pg. 22. :Now, TVO was released years before this project ever started, so most of us were probably half-remembering things until the arrival of the "Look Inside" feature at Amazon, and so we were operating under the assumption that Nicholas and Alexei were killed during Revolution, and Mikhail was installed with the support of the Whites. :However, that little passage calls those assumptions into question. If they didn't "throw him out", then Nicholas implicitly survived the revolution without abdicating or being murdered, and rule much longer than in OTL. It would also suggest that by 1932 at the latest, Nicholas had died or abdicated, and any sons he might have had could not take the throne, either. :It's certainly plausible Michael just ascended as heir to the throne. Nicholas was 50 when he died in 1918 in OTL, and as we know, wars and revolutions take a toll on monarchs. He might have lived another decade at most. Alexei had hemophilia, and was probably not going to have a very long life. Alternatively, HT might have decided to butterfly away Alexei altogether, and have Nicholas die without a male heir. :I guess strict adherence to what HT's actually wrote could require some modification. TR (talk) 00:39, November 5, 2015 (UTC) Prince of Poland and Grand Duke of Finland in "Uncle Alf" I don't recall the story ever mentioning Poland or Finland so I question the necessity of this latest addition to the succession boxes. Thoughts? ML4E (talk) 16:51, July 6, 2016 (UTC) :Look inside at Amazon yields nothing about either country in UA. The feature is not foolproof, though, so Jonathan might have the pages at hand. TR (talk) 17:51, July 6, 2016 (UTC) ::They aren't mentioned in UA. If the section is deemed unnecessary, I won't argue.JonathanMarkoff (talk) 03:33, July 7, 2016 (UTC)